Meta talk:Administrators/Archives/2013

Oversight

Shouldn't having oversight access alone also qualify someone here? Normally, Oversight is given the same prestige as CheckUser, and many users with one of these two have the other as well.Jasper Deng 04:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Consensus is that CheckUser or 'crat isn't sufficient either... not sure why it's on there. The requirement is adminship on a content wiki. Fortunately that includes basically all checkusers, oversighters and bureaucrats. Ajraddatz (Talk) 04:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to be bold and remove all the possible candidates except adminship, because I don't know if all wikis make bureaucrats admins, and the English Wikipedia allows people to have CheckUser and/or Oversight without adminship.Jasper Deng 04:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I undid your edit as this was written years ago. More discussion is required. Plus not everything you said is correct. On "every" Wiki you need to be an administrator before getting bureaucrat access, besides that you'll automatically 'crat access if you resign as an admin. Trijnstel (talk) 15:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Not quite true. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Solved, see here and here. Trijnstel (talk) 15:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh... tell me the policy that disallows people from having the crat right while not being an admin. Sorry, but this removal of rights was probably a very poor move. -Barras talk 16:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

X! left a month ago and removed all the rights he *could* remove, which he can't with the 'crat rights. Therefore I thought this was non-controversial. Plus if the local bureaucrats disagree with me, they're free to re-add the right again as I said on the bureaucrat noticeboard. Trijnstel (talk) 16:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

It is actually possible that he left this right on purpose on his account. Secondly, we don't usually act (non-controversial) on such big wikis. If someone felt the need, they'd have requested the removal already or X! would've asked here himself as he knows where to get help. So if I remove myself somewhere my admin rights and keep the crat mop, I need to be afraid now that some steward comes and removes my crat right from me without any good reason? Very disappointing. -Barras talk 16:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

┌──────────────────────────┘
I'm quite surprised to see this, and I'm disappointed. The English Wikipedia was well aware of X!'s retirement, as were the bureaucrats. If they wanted to remove him, they would've made a request. There is no policy against it, and it flies in the face of our requirement not to meddle in local decisions. Please do not repeat something like this again. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Again, I thought it was non-controversial because he resigned completely. Apparantly I made a mistake here. My sincere apologies. Trijnstel (talk) 17:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• Getting past the mess with X!'s retirement, what's the answer to my original question here?Jasper Deng (talk) 06:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

  (one year later) Seems reasonable, because oversighters are trusted to have access to private data, and are identified to the WMF. If checkusers can become admins, then I don't see why oversighters shouldn't be able to. Besides, most oversighters are trusted as much or more than the admins and bureaucrats of their projects. πr² (t • c) 04:49, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

  Indeed, CU are a mistake, the previous poll on the topic decided to remove them. --Nemo 11:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

General introduction

I'd like to add a brief introduction to the policy:

---

Even if Meta administrators are already sysops on other Wikimedia project, it is useful to recall some important criteria they are always supposed to meet:

• Care and judgment - changes made on Meta (especially those made to blacklists and central notice interface) affect every project; they are also quite complex, so please be careful in using them.
• Accountability - a reasonable degree of accountability is really important in order to maintain a collaborative project
• Avoiding COI - even if potential conflicts of interest are seldom possible on meta, it is a clear-cut common sense measure to avoid them
• Use common sense - on a coordination project without "verbose" policies common sense is essential, secure your account, be civil and always keep in mind Meta is a landing place for users coming from different cultures (and languages!) and "way of Wiki-ing"; for instance, Commons' copyright policies are definitely stricter than any other Wikipedia, while most of the sister projects haave no more than 10% of the rich en.wiki's guidelines and policies.

---

That's always a raw draft trying to catch some of the instances from this rfc.

--Vituzzu (talk) 14:13, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Made some copyedits. --Rschen7754 21:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Sounds understandable.  Support this proposal-addition to Meta:Administrators. Trijnstel_talk 19:01, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Copy-edit query

I've run through it lightly and cleaned up a bit of the language, to make it easier for translators. No substantive changes in meaning, except for my commenting out of a sentence I couldn't make sense of: "In case of an opposition, enough people must speak for the candidate for them to become sysop on Meta." It doesn't seem to add anything after the "75% support needed" statement.

I'm not used to the translate templates. One of them seems to have been interfering with this bullet: "Have a valid contact address ...". I left it untouched, because my preview experiments were unsuccessful. So the bullet still starts mid-line with an asterisk instead of a bullet-mark.

Advice would be appreciated. Thanks.

Tony (talk) 09:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Fixed the asterisk/bullet issue. I thought I left an edit summary and marked it as minor. Sorry about that. πr² (t • c) 17:33, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Deletion

Hey there. Is there a way I could get deletion rights to get rid of my test pages? I feel bad making other people deal with them all. If not, apologies and thanks for your help! That's all :) heather walls (talk) 18:41, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Heather, it's not too much of a problem, just tagging pages with {{delete}} should be fine. How many pages are there to delete? Thehelpfulone 18:54, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Thehelpfulone! It's just like 20 at the moment, but I have these bouts of testing systems now and again. I am happy to just template them if y'all don't mind. heather walls (talk) 22:57, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Regarding adminship or elevated privileges on a Wikimedia content project

Moved to Meta talk:Requests for adminship#Regarding adminship or elevated privileges on a Wikimedia content project. -- 17:51, 23 February 2013 (UTC)